Last Post

I was reading over all of my latest blog posts and thinking about my time spent blogging this semester. I realized how much the blogs really helped me retain information and the ideas from the books. Everyone of my blog posts was an issue that really struck me as interesting and inspiring. It struck me that the biggest ideas and plot points I can remember from all the books this semester were topics that I had blogged about. It only makes sense that the process of writing out my ideas helped me remember. I noticed too how much certain characters or plot points reminded me of events in my own life or events I have heard about in the media. I liked most of the core books because they were easy to relate too and could be applied to anything thing even in modern society. The blogs then gave us the freedom to make those vital connections before we forgot them the next day in class. Overall, the blogs were very helpful to my core experience.

The Key to Heaven

We got to discussing in class today about propaganda in the media and across all governments. We agreed that Persepolis deals with extreme cases of propaganda put out by the revolutionists, the new government. It is crazy to realize the extent to which the government will lie to its people for their support and cooperation. Our discussion group never got a chance to share our page, but on page 99 there is a prime example of the government lying. The narrator's friend is telling her family about how her son is being brainwashed to go fight in the war. The government has given her friend's son a golden key that apparently is the key to heaven for when the son dies. The gesture is meant to lure boys into the army with the promise that if they die they are guaranteed to go to heaven. Furthermore, the government alters the boys sense of heaven by explaining all the luxuries it has to offer. All the women, food and gold one could ever want, obviously a persuading argument to go fight without fear of dying (99).

I just think it's tragic to see the government sink so low. Of course there is no real "key" to heaven, to never ending paradise. It's all made up by the government as an attempt to reassure families and take their children for the war effort.

Persepolis

I love reading the book Persepolis. It's so interesting and fun. The scary part is, is that it's so serious at the same time. When reading my brain is so programed to think it's light reading, so much so that a full page torture scene in black and white ink just shocks me. The juxtaposition of the kid like comics and brutal warfare is astounding. What I also note is the extreme bluntness of the author. She is so little in the beginning, so innocent and she describes these scenes in few words, there is no sugar-coating, she tells it like it is. I think about my time spent babysitting and I realize just how blunt little kids can be. They insult each other naturally without so much a thought as to a possible consequence. They make judgments without think about the emotions surrounding such a statement. Society has not gotten to them yet. Experience has not taught them yet to tread around such subjects lightly and cautiously out of respect for others. In Persepolis, she does have any concept of censoring or using any sort of euphemism, she throws it all out there. I like it. It creates a very authentic message, objective to a point, undiluted.

Relating to Giovanni's Room

David in Giovanni's Room is constantly torn between his girlfriend and his gay tendencies. He is told by multiple people to settle down, get a girl, have a family. But his heart tells him differently, he is attracted to men and wonders about life as an openly gay man. He doesn't think he can do it and spends most of the book oscillating between experimentation and guilt.

All of this tension between choosing the family life and love life made me think of the modern debate concerning gay marriage. Why has society still not allowed the two concepts to fuse? I am writing a paper in Sociology right now about the gay marriage debate and I find the topic very interesting. It seems like if one wants, one can be gay and raise a family at the same time. The family would look different, but the values would be the same: a support system, connectedness, learning environment. But as we can see through numerous measures in almost all states, people don't like the idea of official gay marriage and vote against it. They want marriage to be a sacred thing between one man and one woman. David can represent a victim of this societal outlook. Obviously he can see no way to have the best of both worlds or he wouldn't spend so much time feeling guilty and attempting to make up for his lack of manliness.

A Multiracial Identity Crisis

I was reading the New York Times online today and I came across an interesting article concerning the new issues people are having in identifying themselves as multiracial. Many people who are of multiple races feel the need to choose which race to identify themselves with for personal reasons concerning their own sense of identity. I just thought this article was interesting and worth reading. It reminded me of what WEB du Bois was saying about trying to fit in with the culture around him, about trying to be both American and Black. It also reminded me of Obama's speech on race that we watched on Friday where he asserted that he was just as much a white man as he was a black man although politics and the media advertise otherwise.

check out the article here.

Oh, Freud

Sigmond Freud talks all about civilization and life and living in Civilization and It's Discontents. He likes to approach the idea of life and living in an extremely objective way, to distance himself as much as he can personally from the subject. One thing I noticed was how he likes to refer to living as a sort of art, something that can be approached from many different angles but still produce the same conclusive feeling. A concrete example of this is on page 32 where he is talking about fate he says, "And how could one possible forget, of all others, this technique in the art of living?" I have never thought about life as something in need of proper technique or skill. It seems to contradict the very essence that is life, something nobody can predict or control fully. Freud does establish that he does not know the proper way to go through life either. I actually kind of agree with him when he suggests that such ideologies like fate, religion or lack thereof are just ways people choose to deal with life, to help themselves get through it. It's just interesting to think of your own life in that way because everyone thinks that their way of living is the right way to live, the best that can be done. But in reality there are all sorts of "techniques" to approach this "art of living," I guess I just hope my technique works out ok.

In the End "I Smelled Nothing"

The last paragraph of Age of Iron reads as such a relief after reading through all the stress, pain and ranting by Mrs. Curren. She describes the scene as getting into bed with Vercueil and holding him. I think this is the scene where she finally feels free enough and comfortable enough to die. She says, "I smelled nothing," "the breath went out of me in a rush," "there was no warmth to be had" (198). After a long book, long letter, of deeply describing smells and emotions, feelings and experiences with so much detail they feel almost too real, these last few statements stand out as a momentous event. Vercueil was right next to her and she did not describe his sweaty, dirty, alcoholic smell. She made no reference of her opinions on the situation, the environment. No, this paragraph is strikingly opposite from the rest of the book, further enforcing my feeling that Mrs Curren indeed has passed on.

Parenting

Mrs. Curren makes some pretty bold statements about parenting on page 73. She asserts that "The comfort, the love should flow forward, not backward. That is a rule, another of the iron rules" (72). She is so stubborn and proud of her daughter for leaving South Africa and having her own life, that she will not admit that she really needs her daughter's support and care. As a parent she has in her mind to love unconditionally, and to be constantly giving to her children, expecting little in return. She says this is an iron rule, one instilled into many of her generation.

Mrs. Curren says her daughter is "like iron" and that she would never come back to South Africa even for her own mother. It's so sad. Mrs. Curren is in such pain and need of proper company and she feels like she cannot even ask her daughter to visit her. Vercueil makes his rebuttal by saying she is like iron too, to which she replies "If i were made of iron, surely I would not break so easily" (75). She feels like she has given all her own strength to her daughter and left none for herself. It seems almost like she is disappointed with herself for not being strong enough. She doesn't want her daughter to find out how weak/needy she really is. I find it interesting that she thinks she is so easily broken when she is so solid and stubborn (iron like) in her mindset.

I feel bad for her here that she has made herself feel so abandoned. The passage made me think of my own family, and I wonder about giving back to my own parents. Sometimes I get so caught up in moving forward in my life, in growing up, that I forget how much my parents have done for me. As a little kid you always look at your mom and dad with such awe. They seem so accomplished, strong and smart. As you get older you realize how human they are, and they can be just as needy and emotional as you. Even now, I cannot picture my parents as vulnerable people and I still want to believe they'll always know what to do. But I do think about my mother worrying and trying to help my grandfather, she is past my stage and has accepted her duty of giving back to her parents. My grandpa, like Mrs. Curren, is exceptionally stubborn and refuses to admit he needs any assistance or company. But of course my mother sees through this and she helps him and welcomes him anyway, but I cannot help to think that he may be under his own sort of "iron rule." Neither Mrs. Curren nor my grandfather are comfortable admitting their own vulnerability or mortality.

Crash and Contrast

The vivid imagery Coetzee uses during the bicycle crash in Age of Iron is unlike any other i have read. it is truly disgusting down to every last adjective. But what I found interesting was the comparison Mrs. Curren makes between the crash and a time when her daughter cut her finger in the bread machine. The whole scene with the crash mentions blood so many times that I almost want to stop reading and skip ahead to less gory sections. Her memory of her daughter is so calm and contained compared to the event happening around her in the present time. All this chaos about carnage, and blood and emergency, then a little relief of sorts with her flashback to her wrapping her daughter's finger with pointed maternal care (61-63).

It's interesting how motherly she sounds when she talks about taking care of her daughter. She reassures her daughter by sweetly whispering to her, calmly in the waiting room. The only description we have of her daughter's finger is a "slice." No fountains of blood or butcher chops or any other gross, gory imagery. Just a little, mendable slice.

I feel like this sort of contrast illustrates the urgency Mrs. Curren feels in her life right now. She cannot view anything as simple and calm. Every event seems to be huge, important and complicated. Maybe she chooses to look at it this way because she knows that death will bring no such variety or excitement, but I don't know. I think her sense of urgency definitely stems from her issues dealing with her imminent death. Nothing can be taken for granted and everything must be lived to it's fullest extent. All sounds, visions, smells accounted for. She doesn't want to just write something off as a small happening and dismiss it with few sentences, she doesn't have time for that. That was for her earlier, younger days when she had life ahead of her still, like the memory with her daughter. Now she squeezes every ounce of sensory experience out of life and lives every moment like one big climax. She has to make it interesting, even if it is just a bike crash, it might (probably will) be her last.

How Easy it is to Die

Mrs. Curren is absolutely obsessed with her mortality and her terminal state. I found the passage about William and the chicken farm to have an interesting undertone. First she describes in detail the workings of the chicken farm and the slaughtering of the chickens. She realizes that "some of the bodies I had stuffed with bread crumbs and egg yolk and sage and rubbed with oil and garlic had been held, at the last, between the legs of this man, the father of Florence's children" (42). The whole couple of pages are really beautifully written, but I found this sentence to just pop out at me. We never really associate our food with the living animal source. We never really think about the great control we have over the lives of these animals, constantly monitoring them from the moment the chicks hatch all the way past death, until they are shrink wrapped and placed in the supermarket fridge.

Mrs. Curren is just as fascinated by the concept, she exclaims "So hard and yet so easy, killing, dying" (42). It takes careful planning to raise and kill chickens, there is technique involved. But ultimately it's easy, humans have so much control. In one motion the chicken is dead, and it's over. I think She considers her own mortality for a moment here. All of her life has been done in careful planning, raising her daughter, keeping the house orderly, adhering to her own list of societal standards. While in the end, it's just death waiting. She realizes how easy it is to die, to kill, be killed. It's hard to comprehend the idea of the dead as once living. We never realize how much control nature has over our own lives,

Is Higher Ed for Everyone?

I was a little disappointed in our class discussion today about higher education. Many people were talking about how important a liberal arts education is and how it should be a priority if not a reality for every young person just out of high school. I know this means not everyone has to go to an expensive school like Richmond, and the sort of options such as community colleges and free state schools were mentioned. But not everyone has this opportunity on any level. I think we, as a class, could have been a bit more sensitive to that. Not everyone is capable of making the grades, having the drive, the money, the athletic talent, or super-supportive parents. Some kids never imagine this sort of future for themselves. Even just a community college is more than some can get too without outside help and time. Some people may need to start a full time job right after high school, there just might not be another choice. There is a world beyond the bubble of the higher edu track, and sometimes even I forget that, but I am trying not to, and asking you to do the same.

Web Du Bois says himself that higher edu is not for everyone. I know he lives in a different time and now different types of critical thinking are more relevant, but I think the "underlying theme" is still true. For some it is much more practical to bypass a traditional higher education and make some early decisions for a career and then go for it. live it. On the other end of our spectrum we do have kids who come out of high school, either by graduating or dropping out who immediately have to support themselves. Sometimes they have been kicked out of the house, they may be young mothers, or even get a solid job opportunity which they feel compelled to take advantage of. These kids don't have time to spend in a community college even, they need the skills and the money now.

I just don't think we are looking equally enough at both sides of the situation. Of course it would be nice for everyone to be able to experience higher education, but that is in no way near reality. Just keep that in mind.

The Meaning of Freedom

I found following sequence of quotes sadly very true..

"Few men ever worshiped Freedom with half such unquestioning faith as did the American Negro for two centuries"

"At last it came,--suddenly, fearfully, like a dream."

"Years have passed away since then,--ten, twenty, forty; forty years of national life...and the nation was not yet found peace from it's sins; the freedman has not yet found in freedom his promised land." (7)

For decades before the emancipation act slaves could think of little else but trying to earn their freedom, or to somehow make it north. Freedom in their minds was the ticket to a comfortable life, the American dream. And who could blame them? anyone or anything that is trapped wishes freedom above all else. It's instinctive. But then, once all the slaves are freed and the civil war over, the benefits and success that most thought freedom would bring did not come. The nation was still rooted to it's prejudices, still today even. We form stereotypes and create irrational reasons to segregate ourselves. It's sad. America is definitely the land of the free but in what sense? We can never be truly free of our ingrained search for belonging and acceptance, our tendency to disassociate from people who are different.

Web du Bois mentions the "deep disappointment" of the African American people and their new lifestyles. This freedom was not much of a freedom at all in all meaning of the word. They had choices, but very little rights, very little room to exercise their newfound choice. Gains during the civil rights movement eased some of this unequal freedom, but still, today not everyone is free, not everyone has an equal opportunity , education and hard work can help, but it's sadly not going to work every time. There is always something else in the way. And it may not be race or gender or anything like that. It cold be family, money, laws even and bad luck in general.

So what is freedom? Even in the less extreme example of the emancipation...are people really free? or do they just transfer themselves from one cage to the next. It can be literal or mental. Everything provides a wall. Government laws, societal pressure, our backgrounds and family values, our own minds. I just think it's interesting to contemplate the meaning of freedom for a while. It seems like the more I think about it, the less free I feel. It reminds me of Nietzsche and his ideas about trapping the mind and how society keeps us in a cage. It seems like there is always something to be escaping from. Whether it's something major like literal slavery or something minor like escaping the pressure we feel to dress a certain way or maintain a certain composure.

"Hey, I'm Back"

What!? After all that suspense all I get (the narrator too...) from Sumire is a casual phone call assuring me she still has a pulse. Wow, I am a little disappointed, I'm not gonna lie. But where in the world did she go? That is what I can't figure out. Sumire mentions, "It wasn't easy, but somehow I managed it. Like a fifty-word precis of homer's Odessy" (208). It's like she got lost in some far off place she couldn't get out of. She also explains, "I've gone through bloody hell, I'll have you know. The obstacles I went through-" (208), it's like all this leaving business was not her idea. I'd like to think she was legitimately crazy and just wandered off that night and accidentally got lost in her thoughts or something. But was definitely an intentional journey Sumire endured, I think the documents she wrote were in preparation for it.But I still don't understand where she could have gone, especially since no one could find her...hmmm.

Perhaps it was supernatural? Could that be logical, she went over to the "other side." This theory seems plausible because of Miu's dream about losing her other half. Her experience in the ferris wheel looking in on herself through the windows of her own apartment. This was a very weird, supernatural part of the book and perhaps a hint for Sumire's experience. Maybe Sumire went over to that other world, with the other half of Miu...I don't know I am just making up ideas. Through the mirror. We already know that mirrors are big symbols in the story of identity and reality, so maybe Sumire went through the "mirror", to some other world, like a parallel universe. But, I could be totally off on this one.

I am...well...perhaps later I will know.

"How well do we really know ourselves? The more I think about it, the more I'd like to take a raincheck on the topic of me" (54-55).

We really don't know our selves that well do we? At least I don't. I found this quote refreshingly true made by the narrator in Sputnik Sweetheart. Sometimes when I think about who I am I just wish I could take a raincheck on that too. But I guess I kind of do anyways...I mean I associate myself as a mixture of who I am today and who I want to become. My future plans and goals. That's sort of like a raincheck, a pass. For example if someone hypothetically asked me who I was I may answer with: "well, Im studying education at the university so I plan on being a teacher some day." I am not an official teacher as of yet, but it is a goal of mine right now and thus a part of who I am as well as a way to distract the inquirer from the real, present, me.

It's like we have to justify ourselves for our actions or personalities through mentioning a goal or dream that fits the character quirk. A sort of rational. We need this insurance both to remind ourselves that we are progressive people, not just stagnant within the world. We don't want to let everything out about ourselves because we don't know why we do somethings or act certain ways. We need to either avoid the question or back it up with evidence that our charms will contribute to society later if they aren't already.

Thoughts on "Diving Into the Wreck"

I enjoyed reading the poem diving into the wreck. We read it a few of days ago, but I have the urge to write about it now.

This poem was really interesting because it really spoke a lot about how Adrienne Rich feels about the history of women and how they have acted, all hidden in quite a descriptive metaphor. She talks about diving into a shipwreck and that idea of descending into the depths, into what once was...like back into a historic time (perhaps in terms of women). In my interpretation I see her describing the ship as if it were some long lost women, or just women of the past in general. She adds lines like, "Who downed face sleeps with open eyes/whose breasts still bear the stress/whose silver, copper, vermeil cargo lies...half wedged and left to rot" (55). In these lines she discusses the ship literally but i feel she is discussing women metaphorically. The way women have been suppressed for decades and still "bear the stress" of their histories and lives. Rich mentions the ship's cargo of silver and copper which has been left at the bottom of the ocean to rot. Like all those women spending their lives doting on their career minded husbands and households, their smart minds and goals (the silver and copper) left to "rot". I know she is talking about women in general when she uses the word "we" in her next line, "we are the half-destroyed instruments/ that once held to a course". We as in women are half-destroyed?? Perhaps with our "wasted" histories of male dominance, we once held to the course of success but then veered off into the wrong direction where we are anomalously and "our names do not appear." Rich is very concerned about the way women have been given credit for their accomplishments in history (or their lack of effort because of suppression...). Her poem illustrates a bit of that within the writing.

Adrienne Rich wants to make History

"Well Behaved Women Rarely Make History"

This is a quote that has circled the globe and become cliche among posters and bumper stickers. But I find it also works well with what Adrienne Rich has to say about the women she knows and her message in her writings. Here she mentions the modest means by which she was raised: "my sister, mother, and I--were constantly urged to speak quietly in public, to dress without ostentation, to repress all vividness or spontaneity" (p. 231). They were taught at an early age that women should be kept quiet and behave well. This is exactly the type of thing Adrienne Rich has a problem with, women need to be more expressive of themselves, assertive and become active, equal members of society. Otherwise their potential to contribute, to "make history" is lost and submitted in the male-dominated world. whatever passions, hobbies, skills and ideas any woman has deserves to be displayed and recognized. I think today women obviously have felt freer and more independent, but there is always room to continue. it's like the gap between paychecks for men and women and why men make so much more. They say because women aren't assertive enough as one excuse. Well, apparently "well behaved", quiet women never get a pay raise either. You have to speak up for what you want...to make history...to express yourself and become a free individual.

Iago as a Demon

I know I just mentioned this theory in class but I have to write it down...

I really think the reason that Shakespeare did not kill Iago because he is trying to portray Iago as some heinous devil figure or demon of some sort. Just not human. All of Shakespeare's plays are very human in foundation. They deal with human themes and conflicts involving the human mind and tendency. His tragedies all end with killings and some sort of closure, however brutal. Also, the fantasy characters in his plays are always around and never die. Macbeth is a good example. The three witches in Macbeth cause so much pain and turmoil in the kingdom, and Macbeth even dies. But the witches just disappear, they suffer no consequences for their actions. I think Iago could be some sort of male version of the witches. The text tells the audience that he will be tortured and killed, but that revenge does not happen on stage and we never know for sure.

Furthermore, Iago has no motivation for his manipulation of Othello and other characters within the plot. He does it out of pure malice. He doesn't seem to have any emotion at all for that matter and cares about nothing except his plan. He seems to come into the play with the intention of messing with Othello and leaves the play without any regrets or visible consequences. Acting as a catalyst all the while.

I envision him as a character with no ending or beginning, sort of just a continual beam of evil minded emotion. The other characters have specific start and stop points in comparison. Othello and Desdemona, for example, are clearly grounded in their setting. They have not always been married or been in love. They have other obligations and things to tend to and their streak ends when each dies. It's very straightforward, a very human time line. Iago seems to have no other agenda other than causing mayhem. Sure, he has his wife, Emelia, but he eventually kills her and even she recognized his non trustworthy ways. I can point out quotes too for hard evidence, but I think this is enough for one post. Anyway, Iago is a purely evil character.

Here's a Question: Why Not Trust the Wife?

I wonder sometimes why Othello even bothers with Iago. Of course Iago is manipulative and sleeving etc, and Othello did "overhear" Cassio talking about an affair, but wouldn't he believe his own wife over some young advisor? He doesn't even believe Iago's wife, Emilia (who has doubts about Iago's intentions too). Othello had a happy marriage before Iago, so I don't get why he immediately dismisses everything his own, close, lover has to say to him about her loyalty. Even the woman closest to his wife and Iago, what should be the missing link in this mystery, is bitterly dismissed as a liar. Why? These people don't seem any less trustworthy than anyone else in the play, maybe even more so in some situations.

Perhaps this is an example on the lives of women in Shakespeare's day. In terms of testimony, modernly, men and women are about equal. We both have the power to lie and tell the truth at an equal rate and frequency, etc. But maybe then, the women's opinion was not valued as much as a man's. I would not know for sure because I have not studied extensively over the time period. But that is my theory. Societal issues always seem to get in the way. Just think about Othello's appearance, much different than the rest of the cast, and therefore a problem. This is an issue with society, built on past down prejudices and standards. The wife's role can be just another standard, supporting of her husband, but untrustworthy in terms of faithfulness. It's such a shame.

Othello Pulls a 180

I just cannot get over such a profound tonal shift Othello has gone through in the past couple acts. He was such a pleasing character in the opening acts, trusting, loving to his wife, etc. Now it is frustrating for the audience (as with most Shakespeare ironies...)to find him constantly skeptical of Desdemona (his ever faithful wife) and trusting of the all evil Igor. Especially when Othello asks Desdemona for the handkerchief that he gave to her and she acts all confused and everything. Well, she should be confused. She hasn't done anything. If anything Othello should question Igor. but alas. it's entertainment and never works out the way it should.

Gardening

Probably my favorite part about reading Shakespeare, if it is so required, is the rich metaphors he uses and how they so clearly outline the theme for the audience. The one metaphor I noticed in this case is a passage by Iago on pg 28. Iago in this scene is trying to instill reason in Roderigo that he should not give up hope for wooing Desdemona.

Iago argues, "Virtue? A fig! 'Tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners; so that if we will plant nettles or sow lettuce...why, the power and corrigible authority of this lies in our wills..." (lines 319-326 I.3)

Here Shakespeare is comparing our bodies as something to cultivate with our mentality or our will. I think Shakespeare also means we can control our own mental stability with our will too. His line labeling our will as the gardeners clears up this point. The gardeners have the power over the garden, what goes in, how much water it receives, how it's harvested etc etc. The metaphor can be applied many different ways. It also reminded me of the cliche "mind over matter" where our bodies are the matter (gardens) and our minds are the will (gardeners). It's important that Shakespeare throws in these metaphors because they separate themselves from the text with the unusual wording and thus causes the audience to pay extra attention. The theme of willpower runs strongly throughout the text so obviously we would need to tune into this advice Iago is giving.

Class Today.

Hmm...I really enjoyed class today with our guest speaker, Andrew Hamm. I liked what he had to say about the way to read Shakespeare. I have found that in a book I despise Shakespeare simply because I cannot understand it. I find that once I watch the play or the movie, however, it all becomes clear. I actually do have an appreciation for Shakespeare, but it takes awhile to uncover. It's nice to know that someone, a Shakespeare enthusiast of all people, feels the same way. For some reason my high school teachers thought it was always a quick read and expected us to understand everything with hardly any discussion. It was annoying to say the least because everyone knew the books required more work and thought.

Anyway, I will try my best to understand the rest of Othello with outside reading, but I cannot promise anything. Hopefully in class discussions will help.

Techie Issues

So, I realize this project is supposed to be simple and everything, but I am really having trouble recording my voice. I don't know, maybe I am doing it wrong. But I still have to work on this because right now I don't have anything recorded story wise. The good thing though is that the rest of my stuff is pretty much done with the pictures and transitions. But I'll have to seek help or figure this out tomorrow. I still like the process, I have just reached sort of an annoying technical wall.

Digital Tales

I have been revising my script and fiddling around with Garageband and I have found that I really like this project. It provides a lot of creative freedom which is really cool and a rare in a typical college class. Also, going through all my old pictures and thinking about my childhood has been a fun, comforting but also nostalgic experience. I love old photos, looking at them makes me wish I could just be eight years old again. Oh well. I think the end product, if it turns out well, will make a nice keepsake for myself and the future.

A Bit of Doubt to Open Doors

"The notion began to grow on me that the philosophers whom they call academics were wiser than the rest, because they held that everything should be treated as a matter of doubt and affirmed that no truth can be understood by men" (87).

This epiphany of sorts by Augustine comes after he has traveled to Rome to teach while meeting up with a group of philosophical academics who he can safely call friends. he realizes that nothing is for certain in the world, nothing can be taken for granted. It is this idea of unavoidable doubt which Augustine decides separates the independent, wise thinkers from the common following scholar.

The passage reminded me a bit of Socrates and the White Castle. Socrates thought he was wiser than everyone because he admitted he knew nothing. The end of the white castle finds the narrator living in his chosen, inevitable ignorance when he quits his search for the complete "truth" of the universe.

Augustine is a quite frightened by this idea but inspired by it too. He is skeptical and a little wary of the fact this thinking causes him to completely re-think his faith in the Catholic church and in God or Good and Evil. He had to make a decision, like many people, whether to stay true to his beliefs or welcome the idea of doubt. Things are obviously not how he "sought" (referencing a quote on p65) them to be if it means he may have to compromise his devout faith for this new twist on knowledge...or lack there of. Which brings up the main theme of the Confessions, things are not always how they seem when one first experiences them. Or, over time experiences may have different meanings and it is part of the evolution of life. But in another sense Augustine seems to welcome this new perspective and idea as a fresh take on the way we see the world. He wants to investigate further and doesn't immediately dismiss the validity of the notion just because of his past life and religion. This open-mindedness and sort of revising ability of Augustine's really drives him through the text.

Casual Education

Reading about the Augustine Confessions I found it interesting when he was talking about forced learning in a formal environment vs. free learning in a casual environment . Learning is so much more fun when it's on your own terms and it's stress-free. It's funny because i get so annoyed with all of the books i read for school, but then when there's a break, i often spend my time reading books i have chosen for myself. They may not be as formally educational as the one's i am assigned in class, but it's still reading, it's still stimulating my mind and i learn a little something from every book i read. when educational activities are presented to students in class or in school, those students already have it in their minds that the activities are work or strictly for the sake of learning. nobody expects schoolwork to be fun. however, depending on our personal preferences we may partake in the same activities on our own free time, with an open deadline and flexible schedule. for example: completing the reading for a history class maybe viewed as less than enjoyable but reading a long historical novel on a sunday afternoon can be a quite pleasant, relaxing experience.